The legal defense for former House Speaker and Leyte 1st District Representative Martin Romualdez has pushed back against assertions by state prosecutors that retracted witness statements add evidentiary weight to the ongoing flood control corruption probe.
Counsel Atty. Ade Fajardo countered opinions voiced by Assistant Ombudsman Mico Clavano regarding how investigators should weigh initial allegations against subsequent withdrawals made by key witnesses, including Orly Guteza and members of the group dubbed the “Maleta Boys.”
“Well, we respectfully disagree po,” Fajardo said in a statement.
Clavano previously contended that original testimonies and retractions must both be treated as material evidence during the Office of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation into allegations that Romualdez accepted payoffs linked to anomalous flood mitigation schemes.
Under the prosecution’s view, a withdrawal does not act as an “eraser” but rather provides additional material that investigators must analyze to determine the facts.
Fajardo argued that such comparisons expose irreconcilable inconsistencies within the prosecution’s narrative rather than building a stronger foundation for charges.
He stressed that when a key witness recants a core claim of direct knowledge, it creates a fundamental credibility issue that investigators must resolve before deciding whether to proceed with legal action.
The defense attorney maintained that retractions cast significant doubt on the reliability of earlier claims attempting to link the former Speaker to any illicit activities.
“Mukhang nagsasabi lang ang tanggapan ng Ombudsman ng mga ganoong salita para sabihin na buhay pa ang kaso nito,” Fajardo added.
Fajardo concluded that a witness disowning a prior narrative does not automatically fortify allegations against an accused party. Instead, anti-graft investigators must evaluate how these retractions compromise the overall integrity and dependability of the original claims.